K LAKSHMANAN Vs. S KEVICHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/accused in C.C.No. 455 of 1998 on the file of Judicial Magistrate I, Erode has preferred the revision aggrieved against the order passed in Cri. M. P. 4725 of 2000 dated 1-8-2000.

(2.) The case in brief is as follows : The respondent filed a complaint under Section 128 of Negotiable Instruments Act (herein-after referred to as 'N. I. Act') aginst the Petitioner. The petitioner has taken a specific stand that he had money transaction with one Shanmugam, father of the complainant during the period 1992 to 1994 and at his request, he issued two blank cheques as security and after the transactions were over, the petitioners demanded for return of the cheques and it was stated that they were displaced and assured to return them as and when traced out. These cheques have been filled up by the complainant to make unlawful gain. All these facts have been specifically mentioned even in the reply notice sent by the petitioner to the complainant, which is marked as Ex. P7. No. signed in the blank cheques only 1992 and he never borrowed any money from the respondent/complainant. The complainant was examined as PW. 1 and according to him the petitioner has signed two cheques in his presence in the year 1998. Hence, the petitioner filed an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act to send the two cheques marked as Exs. P1 and P2 to the handwriting and fingerprint expert at the Government Press, Nasik or to any other expert to the satisfaction of the Court in order as to ascertain the age of the ink of the signatures on each cheques and the age of the ink of the other words written on each cheque.

(3.) The respondent resisted the application and denied the averments. There is no handwriting and fingerprint expert at Government Press, Nasik. The complaint was filed on 12-6-1998. The petitioner already filed Criminal revision petition and the same was dismissed by this Court with a direction to dispose the matter within two months. The respondent was examined as PW. 1 on 23-7-1999. On 6-6-2000 the evidence on the side of the complainant was closed and it was posted for the examination of the petitioner's witness. The petitioner took time to examine his witness on 8-6-2000, 14-6-2000, 20-6-2000 and an 27-6-2000. Only on the last date, the petitioner filed his list of witness and also filed the present petition. There is no necessity for comparing the age of the ink found in the cheque. The age of the ink also cannot be acertained by any handwriting expert. There is no merit in the application and the intention of the petitioner is only to delay the matter.